Jim Hoagland's Sunday morning column argues that the Democrats are trivializing important issues by focusing on the prewar intelligence. He begins by writing:

We were so stupid that we let our idiot president and an Arab con man fool us on a life-and-death issue.

The con man of course is Ahmed Chalabi, who has been accused of many awful things - including misleading the United States into a terrible pointless war that was none of our business. There is a historical analogy here - Ben Franklin. The Continental Congress sent Franklin to Paris with minimal instructions or expectations. They were hoping to maybe get diplomatic recognition. Franklin succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Because of his experiments with electricity he was the Jerry Lewis of his time. His French wasn't very good, but he was a canny politician. He convinced the French to heavily support the American revolution with money and military forces. This support was critical to the revolution's success. It was also one of France's few strategic successes against its long-time nemesis, England. At the Battle of Yorktown a French fleet actually beat a British fleet (the only French naval victory over the Brits that I know of) allowing Washington to win and effectively securing American independence.

But the French paid for the victory. Aid to the American revolution stretched an already overextended treasury and was an important contributing factor to the fiscal crisis that led to the French Revolution. For us, Franklin was a great hero - but he must have had French detractors 225 years ago.

Chalabi is the inverse of Franklin. He is not a celebrity, but his English is excellent. In fact there are few Arab thinkers who can more effectively and eloquently discuss the principles of liberal democracy in English. (Full disclosure here - I have met him a few times, have spoken with him, and basically think he is a good guy.)

Parallel to Franklin, he managed to come to Washington, charm key people, outplay his enemies, put his issues on the table, and build a following here. This is no small thing. He is frequently accused of doing this for personal gain (an old banking scandal in that model of fiscal probity - Jordan - is always dredged up). But, as an Iraqi patriot what should Ahmed have done?

His country was in the grip of a psychopathic madman. Should he have made peace with Saddam and returned (probably not safe.) Should he have enjoyed a comfortable exile (an easy option.) Instead, he choose the very difficult path of trying to liberate his country. Plotting a coup against a master of intrigue like Saddam is almost impossible. Raising an army without serious state support is not realistic. His analysis was that the road to Baghdad went through the world's remaining superpower - Washington.

Did Chalabi hustle and manuever to make his case? Undoubtedly. Does that make him a scoundrel? Then so is Ben Franklin.